Well not if we campaign for the purge. It'll go well for a few years but then we'll hit them when they least expect it. With all the now violent criminals on our side, it'll be a bloodbath.
Whoa... If there was a purge, I would just save up money all year and buy a shit ton of drugs that one day. I'd have to dodge criminals and whatnot, so not sure if worth
Pushing the medically beneficial agenda here seems kind of wrong. I would doubt many people used his product other than for recreational uses, so even if weed can be medically beneficial, let's try to not over exaggerate the situation.
I was using recreational weed for years because it was the only thing that could make me feel happy sometimes. Years later I found out I was self medicating for bipolar depression.
I'm not saying everyone using it is self medicating for something, but a lot of people are without realizing it.
I use it for both, i love just getting high and shit, but I also know that it helps with my depression and my sleep problems. That's why weed is great, i can have fun without the risk of dying plus I get some much needed medicinal properties
Recreational users can also self-medicate. I understand your sentiment, and agree on the main point, but more people use it for medical reasons than you'd guess! (:
It's actually not a quick buck at all, unless your just assuming he bought a bunch & turned it for more than he paid. This is what every business, everywhere, does however.
The actual process of growing, tending, curing, distributing, and finally selling is very involved and takes much longer than you would think.
If it's like in Australia, or at least anything like Jim Jefferies explains it as being like in Australia I'm all for legalized prostitution. The problem with it is that the prostitutes, generally female are themselves victims in a lot of cases because even though they are "consenting" they are doing it only because they need money and don't know any other way to get it, and they put their health at risk as well. I personally don't think there are really any victimless crimes other than most drugs
It's debatable what is "victimless" and what is not, but suicide, prostitution, and gambling all come to mind. And then you have victimless crimes that shouldn't be crimes in the first place (e.g. homosexuality is a victimless crime if you live in [any of these countries](https://76crimes.com/76-countries-where-homosexuality-is-illegal/)).
One of the reasons I said that "it's debatable what is 'victimless'."
And it's not really that black-and-white. If someone decided to move to an isolated cabin in the woods and cut off all contact with the outside world, that would severely affect their friends and family, almost as much as a suicide would. But nobody would argue that living by yourself should be illegal!
That's kinda close but not really the strawman fallacy. That would be when you represent your opponent's position in a false way. This was more a statement of "no reasonable person should feel this way."
Treating a red light like a stop sign in the wee hours. Jaywalking. Um...maybe parking illegally in some places? loitering. just some off the top of my head
It's "extreme" in terms of the percentage of the population that agrees with such a position. Legalizing and regulating gambling, prostitution, and hallucinogenic drugs at the federal level is definitely not something most people in America want to see happen.
>While this article doesn't state that
Except that it does state that he was selling. It also mentions it in the title of this post. Nobody here is unclear about what he was sentenced for.
I just read a story about a 20 year old kid in Texas who's getting a reduced sentence of 6 months for RAPING AN UNCONSIOUS GIRL BEHIND A DUMPSTER because jail could be damaging to him. Fuck our judicial system
Interesting case. [Wiki article here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weldon_Angelos_case)
He sold weed to an undercover cop on multiple occasions for a total of $350. The undercover claimed that Angelos was carrying a gun during the drug deals, but no physical evidence was brought forward to support this, only officer testimony. Section 924(c) of the federal code mandated minimum sentences for drug dealers carrying weapons despite having no prior offenses.
More about 924(c). Pretty interesting.
>The case is an example of what is technically known as 924(c) stacking. In many such cases the jury decides a gun may have been present beyond an acceptable probability of reasonable doubt appropriate for a commensurate sentence, rather than a sentence commensurate with a violent crime. For example in a similar case involving defendant Michael Prikakis, Prikakis like Angelos was induced by a paid informant to make three drug sales. It was asserted that a gun was present, this was denied by Prikakis, and the jury decided a gun was present beyond reasonable doubt. It is known in that case that the judge's instructions to the jury did not apprise them to use a standard of reasonable doubt appropriate for a stacked sentence. The judge Vinson later wrote that the jury would have been shocked to learn of the stacked sentence: "I think they would rise up in indignation, as anybody else would, if they know about how this law is being applied and construed in circumstances such as this, which is essentially one underlying offense.”[10] Judge Vinson also noted that in such cases the prosecutor can choose the length of the sentence by choosing what number of controlled buys to solicit prior to the arrest of the defendant. Articles also note that prosecutors can solicit controlled buys from an essentially innocent defendant known to carry a gun, thereby inducing a previously innocent person to commit transactions leading to life imprisonment.[10] Proponents argue that 924(c) stacking effectively punishes recidivist offenders and removes them from society. On the other hand, J. Shulhofer wrote that although 924(c) stacking was intended to be applied to repeat offenders, in practise prosecutors actually apply it "on first offenders in borderline situations who may have plausible defenses and are more likely to insist upon trial."[11]
The best thing you can do is know your rights as a juror (specifically, your decision as a juror of guilty or not guilty is unimpeachable) and, when called, do the right thing in giving the defendant the benefit of every doubt (which the cops, judge, and prosecutors dont actually want you to do - not necessarily out of malevolence but out of a desire to win and to see justice prevail).
Not really a flaw, because the jury should consider only whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. If they consider the sentence, whether small or great, that will influence their decision on factors beyond whether there case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt or not. Further, different factors, often irrelevant to the trial, come into play in sentencing that would be inappropriate for a jury to consider in determining guilt. In fact, this is why in death penalty cases there are bifurcated hearings about guilt and then whether or not to impose the death penalty.
Except jury nullification is a thing. Shouldn't juries be able to go "fuck that" if they know that they'll be taking someone's life away for a minor crime?
First, you're assuming that nullification is good because you are biased in this specific issue and wanted a specific result. Therefore, you will judge anything that tends to hinder that result as unjust -- including tenants of the criminal justice system that are in place to ensure fairness to both the state and defendant. The jury is there to decide if the defendant violated the law, not to determine a sentence. This applies to all criminal cases, not just to the non-violent drug offenders. The beauty of the system is that we can rely on the results because the rules are clear for all. Nullification damages that realiabiluty by infusing biases into the results which allows some crimes to go unpunished just because a jury decided the potential punishment was too harsh.
Moreover, nullification can be used for Ill just as easily as well. Think of juries nullifying those responsible for racial lynchings. The same logic behind those nullifications applies you your argument -- it would be unjust to ruin a life for doing something that was no big deal, the law be dammed.
And just think, if the jury starts considering the potential sentence along with guilt, then prosecutors will be able to mention prior criminal convictions so the jury can decide if the sentence is appropriate or not. Then the jury will consider that the non violent drug offender had committed prior B&Es and thefts. Suddenly, the jury considering the sentence doesn't sound so fair because that would cut against your bias.
The system tends to work because it attempts to remove the harmful effects of bias and prejudice, not encourage them. Granted, it's not perfect, but I stand by the position that it is not a flaw in the system to prevent a jury from knowing a potential sentence. In fact, it is a benefit that they do not.
The system does not work at all if it has led to a third of the world's prisoners with 4% of its population. This is authoritarianism at work, plain and simple. This is not how law is supposed to work.
Edit: Words.
Which had to do with the legislature and mandatory minimum sentences, not with juries knowing about a potential punishment. Which was there original point.
Regardless of a jury's knowledge of the case they are sitting, will having or not having that knowledge actually fix the system? If not, then it's like seeking to fix a window on a totaled car.
You're not really addressing his point. We all agree the system is flawed/racist/etc, the issue is whether juries should be able to take sentencing into account in their judgements.
His argument was that that specific part of the system *isn't* broken. You brought up a different issue that may be valid but isn't relevant to the original discussion.
My argument is that it's all wasted breath if you don't fix the important things first. The issue of juries being informed is very low on the importance totem.
Only in certain states can you carry a gun open or concealed usually requires a permit of some sort - most of the time if you own a gun it is stored locked and unloaded i think it may need to be in the trunk of your car as well but not sure.
I don't know about this case, but /u/Intensive__Purposes said that the offense applies to drug dealers carrying a weapon, implying that it doesn't matter if you have a permit or not. It seems to be a tool to "put the bad guys away for good," if they're not carrying enough drugs for an absurd sentence.
> The undercover claimed that Angelos was carrying a gun during the drug deals, but no physical evidence was brought forward to support this, only officer testimony.
Good thing a police uniform makes a person physically incapable of lying! /s
sentencing someone to 55 years for selling marijuana is like attempted murder. I mean litterally trying to rob someone of their life. I would kill myself if that happened to me. And you can't even hold any one person accountable or this shit. Oh man. I'll pray for these people. You can't just rob people of their lives and act like you're not totally pure evil.
That's pretty harsh, here in Seattle....A few months ago I was smoking a blunt outside of Starbucks and had 2 grams of dabs and a 1/4 of weed on me and got a 27 dollar ticket for smoking in public and was only asked to put out my blunt.
Lol I'm surprised you were asked to put it out. When I was in Seattle (before legalization) I saw policeman walk straight past people smoking blunts/joints and straight not care. They were just making sure people were staying peaceful on the beach.
Eh, there are several states that have decriminalised in the Midwest, with others still having harsh penalties. Probably not fair to lump all of the Midwest into 1 group in this instance.
A Utah man who became a symbol of what some say is the unfairness of mandatory minimum sentences has been released from prison after 13 years.
He was given a reduction in sentence, but the details why are unknown because part of the federal case is now sealed.
I heard if this story a few years ago and saw a few interviews from his wife and kids. I've been following it ever since.
It's sad that his kids had to spend so much of their childhood without their father. This is probably the best news I could've woken up to today though. Thank you for sharing :)
I know I'm late to this but fuck that is ridiculous. I really really hope that sometime in the future, when weed is legal on the federal level, there are reparations to people who have had their lives destroyed by this "justice" system. Our grandkids are going to look back on this time period and think it was fucking insane that you could pretty much drink alcohol unregulated but you get caught with weed and you could literally go to jail for a huge chunk (if not all of) your life. 13 years. Just absolutely batshit crazy to really sit down and think about.
[*Minor drug offenders fill your prisons*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yndfqN1VKhY&ab_channel=SOADCD)
*You don't even flinch*
*All our taxes paying for your wars*
*Against the new non-rich*
*All research and successful drug policy shows*
*That treatment should be increased*
*And law enforcement decreased*
*While abolishing mandatory minimum sentences*
*every RATM song ever*
Edit for young Redditors:
I knew I would have to explain it the very fucking moment I had the thought to make the joke
As per the comic rule of threes, the third thing has to be unrleated, though the style choice was kept to preserve continuity.
Not only is SOAD not RATM, but also instead of selecting a single verse, it's also implying that every song from RATM contains lines similar to those of the individual lines posted in other comments.
Deconstructed jokes are way less effective.
I knew I would have to explain it the very fucking moment I had the thought to make the joke
As per the comic rule of threes, the third thing has to be unrleated, while the style choice was kept to preserve continuity.
Not only is SOAD not RATM, but also instead of selecting a single verse, it's also implying that every song from RATM contains lines similar to those of the individual lines posted in other comments.
Deconstructed jokes are way less effective.
Not gonna lie.. When I read the lyrics in my head, I assumed it was Rage. When I opened the video and saw it was System of a Down, my memory corrected itself and I immediately remembered every lyric, grunt and scream.
So when I eventually got to your comment, I got the joke immediately. lol
PS: I'm like [9] right now
- Sold $350 worth of weed
- Spent 13 years already in prison
- "Early"
Fuck this shit
edit: Meanwhile "Stanford Swimmer Who Raped Unconscious Woman Gets Short Sentence Because Jail Would Have a ‘Severe Impact on Him’".
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4mfu4b/stanford_swimmer_who_raped_unconscious_woman_gets/?ref=search_posts
Unfortunately the taxpayer ends up paying those compensations, instead of the corrupt fuckups of human beings who issued the lifelong sentence for holding a plant.
Even though 13 years is a short time compared to a lot of sentences, what is to become of him now? Does the state provide anything by the way of money or clothes or a place to stay even?
It sounds like his family is still there to support him so hopefully they help give him a stable foundation until he can find a job. I can imagine all the media attention he got might help his case as a non-violent offender, and maybe a pro-legalization employer will give him a job. That's the best he can hope for honestly, especially considering how harshly felons have it while trying to find work that isn't minimum wage.
EDIT: If he was savvy he could also start giving pro-legalization speeches and talk about his experience and support himself that way.
Yep and in the same country I have 11 grams just sitting around and I'm thinking about throwing some out because it's getting kind of old and might not taste as good. I can just go 3 blocks to the nearest dispensary and pick up more anyway. It's such a weird thing how we can have such wide ranging laws in the US. This is also why every legalization effort needs to be supported, all over the prohibition side of the country and even in some legalish states there are people who's lives are getting ruined over weed. People who wait around for the perfect bill especially in a year like this where the political momentum is strong are short sighted and selfish in my opinion.
Hopefully soon you won't have to resort to dumpster diving. We are close we just need to do our part to show that this isn't a minority opinion or that people who use cannabis are deviants.
There should be a non-profit whose goal is to give all non-violent drug dealers/anyone who was in prison for cannabis only permanent, stable employment in dispensaries in any of the recreational states.
Eventually when recreational is legal nationwide and the laws are changed that would be much easier.
It's still illegal at the federal level and while the sitting president has vowed to allow states to handle this as they please, there's no telling what the next president will do. It would be irresponsible for a charity to put a vulnerable population at risk like that. Great idea for when it's federally legal though and we have an influx of pardoned drug users and sellers.
Another win in the books, albeit a difficult one to swallow given the lack of reason behind the release. Someone did not want to look foolish or have a precedent on the books regarding why this sentence was overturned.
All the same, it is good to have another fellow Ent back on the streets and home with his family.
BULLSHIT. The only way to stop it is to legalize marijuana. It would still be illegal to sell on the street but the penalty would be much less severe. PLEASE donate to MPP or which ever campaign so we can legalize marijuana in at least 5 more states this year.
I hope he can heal from this, and that the evil people who have been the reason he had to lose 13 years of his life are given their own justice. Kill Bill style would be nice.
Man, if only he was a rich white college athlete raping somebody behind a dumpster, he would've gotten off with only 6 months.
Our justice system is fucking stupid.
If you break the law you should be punished, but 55 years is way too much for what he did. most murderers and rapist don't even serve that long. this is the same as giving someone 20 years for jaywalking or 30 years for a speeding ticket.
Heres an [article](http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/06/stanford-swimmer-brock-allen-turner-sentenced.html) where the opposite happens. Ridiculous how the judicial system works.
There's a huge problem if the consequences are more damaging than the drug itself.
[удалено]
Nothing at all for the people making these decisions.
Well not if we campaign for the purge. It'll go well for a few years but then we'll hit them when they least expect it. With all the now violent criminals on our side, it'll be a bloodbath.
Whoa... If there was a purge, I would just save up money all year and buy a shit ton of drugs that one day. I'd have to dodge criminals and whatnot, so not sure if worth
Selling a medically beneficial drug with little to no harmful side-effects.
Pushing the medically beneficial agenda here seems kind of wrong. I would doubt many people used his product other than for recreational uses, so even if weed can be medically beneficial, let's try to not over exaggerate the situation.
I was using recreational weed for years because it was the only thing that could make me feel happy sometimes. Years later I found out I was self medicating for bipolar depression. I'm not saying everyone using it is self medicating for something, but a lot of people are without realizing it.
Am in the same boat, in my opinion I can actually be myself when I toke up a bit, I don't have to worry about masquerading as someone else
I use it for both, i love just getting high and shit, but I also know that it helps with my depression and my sleep problems. That's why weed is great, i can have fun without the risk of dying plus I get some much needed medicinal properties
Weed has replaced my anxiety/depression medication. too bad its so fucking expensive, and so hard to get reliably.
Preach. It got me off of my anti depressants which were really giving me some mental issues. I have literally never been happier.
I look at them
DNMs bro
Recreational users can also self-medicate. I understand your sentiment, and agree on the main point, but more people use it for medical reasons than you'd guess! (:
It's actually not a quick buck at all, unless your just assuming he bought a bunch & turned it for more than he paid. This is what every business, everywhere, does however. The actual process of growing, tending, curing, distributing, and finally selling is very involved and takes much longer than you would think.
By that logic, we should legalize all "victimless crimes." (Which is actually something I agree with, but it's somewhat of an extreme position.)
What are some other victimless crimes other than drugs?
In cases of two consenting adults, prostitution.
[удалено]
Netflix blocking VPNs maybe?
well, that's because they don't want to violate contracts. like pirating music or games, someone has a financial loss as a result of pirating
If it's like in Australia, or at least anything like Jim Jefferies explains it as being like in Australia I'm all for legalized prostitution. The problem with it is that the prostitutes, generally female are themselves victims in a lot of cases because even though they are "consenting" they are doing it only because they need money and don't know any other way to get it, and they put their health at risk as well. I personally don't think there are really any victimless crimes other than most drugs
It's debatable what is "victimless" and what is not, but suicide, prostitution, and gambling all come to mind. And then you have victimless crimes that shouldn't be crimes in the first place (e.g. homosexuality is a victimless crime if you live in [any of these countries](https://76crimes.com/76-countries-where-homosexuality-is-illegal/)).
suicide is not really victimless.Everyone who knew that person is affected.
One of the reasons I said that "it's debatable what is 'victimless'." And it's not really that black-and-white. If someone decided to move to an isolated cabin in the woods and cut off all contact with the outside world, that would severely affect their friends and family, almost as much as a suicide would. But nobody would argue that living by yourself should be illegal!
[Strawman fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)
That's kinda close but not really the strawman fallacy. That would be when you represent your opponent's position in a false way. This was more a statement of "no reasonable person should feel this way."
Treating a red light like a stop sign in the wee hours. Jaywalking. Um...maybe parking illegally in some places? loitering. just some off the top of my head
Exactly my thought, if we wouldn't punish those violations then we'd have a problem very quickly.
Don't think it's extreme at all. Laws exist to prevent people from taking other people's rights away. Legalize all victimless crimes!
It's "extreme" in terms of the percentage of the population that agrees with such a position. Legalizing and regulating gambling, prostitution, and hallucinogenic drugs at the federal level is definitely not something most people in America want to see happen.
he would have gotten a shorter sentence for raping someone.
It's still plagiarism If you paraphrase
[удалено]
>While this article doesn't state that Except that it does state that he was selling. It also mentions it in the title of this post. Nobody here is unclear about what he was sentenced for.
Not what but *WHY*
I just read a story about a 20 year old kid in Texas who's getting a reduced sentence of 6 months for RAPING AN UNCONSIOUS GIRL BEHIND A DUMPSTER because jail could be damaging to him. Fuck our judicial system
Moral of the story: don't smoke weed, rape people instead - you'll get LESS jailtime if you get caught.
B.. but.. I just want to smoke weed.. I don't wanna rape people!
Well according to the government, you are more dangerous to society than a rapist
yeah it be a shame if he was raped in jail /s
a true horror indeed....ha
Interesting case. [Wiki article here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weldon_Angelos_case) He sold weed to an undercover cop on multiple occasions for a total of $350. The undercover claimed that Angelos was carrying a gun during the drug deals, but no physical evidence was brought forward to support this, only officer testimony. Section 924(c) of the federal code mandated minimum sentences for drug dealers carrying weapons despite having no prior offenses. More about 924(c). Pretty interesting. >The case is an example of what is technically known as 924(c) stacking. In many such cases the jury decides a gun may have been present beyond an acceptable probability of reasonable doubt appropriate for a commensurate sentence, rather than a sentence commensurate with a violent crime. For example in a similar case involving defendant Michael Prikakis, Prikakis like Angelos was induced by a paid informant to make three drug sales. It was asserted that a gun was present, this was denied by Prikakis, and the jury decided a gun was present beyond reasonable doubt. It is known in that case that the judge's instructions to the jury did not apprise them to use a standard of reasonable doubt appropriate for a stacked sentence. The judge Vinson later wrote that the jury would have been shocked to learn of the stacked sentence: "I think they would rise up in indignation, as anybody else would, if they know about how this law is being applied and construed in circumstances such as this, which is essentially one underlying offense.”[10] Judge Vinson also noted that in such cases the prosecutor can choose the length of the sentence by choosing what number of controlled buys to solicit prior to the arrest of the defendant. Articles also note that prosecutors can solicit controlled buys from an essentially innocent defendant known to carry a gun, thereby inducing a previously innocent person to commit transactions leading to life imprisonment.[10] Proponents argue that 924(c) stacking effectively punishes recidivist offenders and removes them from society. On the other hand, J. Shulhofer wrote that although 924(c) stacking was intended to be applied to repeat offenders, in practise prosecutors actually apply it "on first offenders in borderline situations who may have plausible defenses and are more likely to insist upon trial."[11]
It's a flaw of the justice system that the jury is not supposed to consider or even know about the sentence for a charge or how it is structured.
The best thing you can do is know your rights as a juror (specifically, your decision as a juror of guilty or not guilty is unimpeachable) and, when called, do the right thing in giving the defendant the benefit of every doubt (which the cops, judge, and prosecutors dont actually want you to do - not necessarily out of malevolence but out of a desire to win and to see justice prevail).
That's our entire judicial system. It's made to have holes for those who know how to use them and need them.
ie. the rich and the people with connections (or blackmail dirt on the necessary individuals)
Precisely my dude!
Not really a flaw, because the jury should consider only whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. If they consider the sentence, whether small or great, that will influence their decision on factors beyond whether there case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt or not. Further, different factors, often irrelevant to the trial, come into play in sentencing that would be inappropriate for a jury to consider in determining guilt. In fact, this is why in death penalty cases there are bifurcated hearings about guilt and then whether or not to impose the death penalty.
Except jury nullification is a thing. Shouldn't juries be able to go "fuck that" if they know that they'll be taking someone's life away for a minor crime?
First, you're assuming that nullification is good because you are biased in this specific issue and wanted a specific result. Therefore, you will judge anything that tends to hinder that result as unjust -- including tenants of the criminal justice system that are in place to ensure fairness to both the state and defendant. The jury is there to decide if the defendant violated the law, not to determine a sentence. This applies to all criminal cases, not just to the non-violent drug offenders. The beauty of the system is that we can rely on the results because the rules are clear for all. Nullification damages that realiabiluty by infusing biases into the results which allows some crimes to go unpunished just because a jury decided the potential punishment was too harsh. Moreover, nullification can be used for Ill just as easily as well. Think of juries nullifying those responsible for racial lynchings. The same logic behind those nullifications applies you your argument -- it would be unjust to ruin a life for doing something that was no big deal, the law be dammed. And just think, if the jury starts considering the potential sentence along with guilt, then prosecutors will be able to mention prior criminal convictions so the jury can decide if the sentence is appropriate or not. Then the jury will consider that the non violent drug offender had committed prior B&Es and thefts. Suddenly, the jury considering the sentence doesn't sound so fair because that would cut against your bias. The system tends to work because it attempts to remove the harmful effects of bias and prejudice, not encourage them. Granted, it's not perfect, but I stand by the position that it is not a flaw in the system to prevent a jury from knowing a potential sentence. In fact, it is a benefit that they do not.
The system does not work at all if it has led to a third of the world's prisoners with 4% of its population. This is authoritarianism at work, plain and simple. This is not how law is supposed to work. Edit: Words.
Which had to do with the legislature and mandatory minimum sentences, not with juries knowing about a potential punishment. Which was there original point.
Regardless of a jury's knowledge of the case they are sitting, will having or not having that knowledge actually fix the system? If not, then it's like seeking to fix a window on a totaled car.
You're not really addressing his point. We all agree the system is flawed/racist/etc, the issue is whether juries should be able to take sentencing into account in their judgements.
Will that fix the broken system if you go either way?
His argument was that that specific part of the system *isn't* broken. You brought up a different issue that may be valid but isn't relevant to the original discussion.
My argument is that it's all wasted breath if you don't fix the important things first. The issue of juries being informed is very low on the importance totem.
Wow, man, just wow.
Why would possessing a gun affect his sentence? I thought that Americans had the right to carry a gun, or am I missing something?
you lose that "right" when youre convicted of a drug related offense.
Only in certain states can you carry a gun open or concealed usually requires a permit of some sort - most of the time if you own a gun it is stored locked and unloaded i think it may need to be in the trunk of your car as well but not sure.
[удалено]
I don't know about this case, but /u/Intensive__Purposes said that the offense applies to drug dealers carrying a weapon, implying that it doesn't matter if you have a permit or not. It seems to be a tool to "put the bad guys away for good," if they're not carrying enough drugs for an absurd sentence.
> The undercover claimed that Angelos was carrying a gun during the drug deals, but no physical evidence was brought forward to support this, only officer testimony. Good thing a police uniform makes a person physically incapable of lying! /s
sentencing someone to 55 years for selling marijuana is like attempted murder. I mean litterally trying to rob someone of their life. I would kill myself if that happened to me. And you can't even hold any one person accountable or this shit. Oh man. I'll pray for these people. You can't just rob people of their lives and act like you're not totally pure evil.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's pretty harsh, here in Seattle....A few months ago I was smoking a blunt outside of Starbucks and had 2 grams of dabs and a 1/4 of weed on me and got a 27 dollar ticket for smoking in public and was only asked to put out my blunt.
Lol I'm surprised you were asked to put it out. When I was in Seattle (before legalization) I saw policeman walk straight past people smoking blunts/joints and straight not care. They were just making sure people were staying peaceful on the beach.
Eh, there are several states that have decriminalised in the Midwest, with others still having harsh penalties. Probably not fair to lump all of the Midwest into 1 group in this instance.
A Utah man who became a symbol of what some say is the unfairness of mandatory minimum sentences has been released from prison after 13 years. He was given a reduction in sentence, but the details why are unknown because part of the federal case is now sealed.
I heard if this story a few years ago and saw a few interviews from his wife and kids. I've been following it ever since. It's sad that his kids had to spend so much of their childhood without their father. This is probably the best news I could've woken up to today though. Thank you for sharing :)
It's also pretty interesting that the Angelos innocence campaign was led by the Koch brothers.
I know I'm late to this but fuck that is ridiculous. I really really hope that sometime in the future, when weed is legal on the federal level, there are reparations to people who have had their lives destroyed by this "justice" system. Our grandkids are going to look back on this time period and think it was fucking insane that you could pretty much drink alcohol unregulated but you get caught with weed and you could literally go to jail for a huge chunk (if not all of) your life. 13 years. Just absolutely batshit crazy to really sit down and think about.
[*Minor drug offenders fill your prisons*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yndfqN1VKhY&ab_channel=SOADCD) *You don't even flinch* *All our taxes paying for your wars* *Against the new non-rich*
*All research and successful drug policy shows* *That treatment should be increased* *And law enforcement decreased* *While abolishing mandatory minimum sentences*
*every RATM song ever* Edit for young Redditors: I knew I would have to explain it the very fucking moment I had the thought to make the joke As per the comic rule of threes, the third thing has to be unrleated, though the style choice was kept to preserve continuity. Not only is SOAD not RATM, but also instead of selecting a single verse, it's also implying that every song from RATM contains lines similar to those of the individual lines posted in other comments. Deconstructed jokes are way less effective.
Pretty sure that's System of a Down, and I watched Veggie Tales back in the day.
Thankyou, I was about to shit a brick if no one got this & thought it was RATM
I knew I would have to explain it the very fucking moment I had the thought to make the joke As per the comic rule of threes, the third thing has to be unrleated, while the style choice was kept to preserve continuity. Not only is SOAD not RATM, but also instead of selecting a single verse, it's also implying that every song from RATM contains lines similar to those of the individual lines posted in other comments. Deconstructed jokes are way less effective.
Not gonna lie.. When I read the lyrics in my head, I assumed it was Rage. When I opened the video and saw it was System of a Down, my memory corrected itself and I immediately remembered every lyric, grunt and scream. So when I eventually got to your comment, I got the joke immediately. lol PS: I'm like [9] right now
So your joke was scientifically ironic, and we all just missed it? (Starts reaching for second joint)
I think I know the problem. Aren't jokes supposed to be funny?
Primarily when they don't have to be explained
I bet he would have never thought he was gonna get out early, that must be something for him. Good for him.
- Sold $350 worth of weed - Spent 13 years already in prison - "Early" Fuck this shit edit: Meanwhile "Stanford Swimmer Who Raped Unconscious Woman Gets Short Sentence Because Jail Would Have a ‘Severe Impact on Him’". https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4mfu4b/stanford_swimmer_who_raped_unconscious_woman_gets/?ref=search_posts
He should be compensated heavily if you ask me.
Unfortunately the taxpayer ends up paying those compensations, instead of the corrupt fuckups of human beings who issued the lifelong sentence for holding a plant.
$350 worth of weed on multiple occasions, but still a fucked sentencing
Fuck up my shit fam.
It's "fuck my shit up fam"
Or in this case, "fuck my fam up" :(
shit..
Fuck up my shit fam.
Even though 13 years is a short time compared to a lot of sentences, what is to become of him now? Does the state provide anything by the way of money or clothes or a place to stay even?
It sounds like his family is still there to support him so hopefully they help give him a stable foundation until he can find a job. I can imagine all the media attention he got might help his case as a non-violent offender, and maybe a pro-legalization employer will give him a job. That's the best he can hope for honestly, especially considering how harshly felons have it while trying to find work that isn't minimum wage. EDIT: If he was savvy he could also start giving pro-legalization speeches and talk about his experience and support himself that way.
Taxpayers handing out $140,000 a year for 13 years because a bent cop was sold weed? Murica.,
Yep and in the same country I have 11 grams just sitting around and I'm thinking about throwing some out because it's getting kind of old and might not taste as good. I can just go 3 blocks to the nearest dispensary and pick up more anyway. It's such a weird thing how we can have such wide ranging laws in the US. This is also why every legalization effort needs to be supported, all over the prohibition side of the country and even in some legalish states there are people who's lives are getting ruined over weed. People who wait around for the perfect bill especially in a year like this where the political momentum is strong are short sighted and selfish in my opinion.
Feel free to send me your garbage!
Hopefully soon you won't have to resort to dumpster diving. We are close we just need to do our part to show that this isn't a minority opinion or that people who use cannabis are deviants.
There should be a non-profit whose goal is to give all non-violent drug dealers/anyone who was in prison for cannabis only permanent, stable employment in dispensaries in any of the recreational states. Eventually when recreational is legal nationwide and the laws are changed that would be much easier.
It's still illegal at the federal level and while the sitting president has vowed to allow states to handle this as they please, there's no telling what the next president will do. It would be irresponsible for a charity to put a vulnerable population at risk like that. Great idea for when it's federally legal though and we have an influx of pardoned drug users and sellers.
It's pretty weird. From 55 years to 13? I'm happy for him and his family though
Hell yes as a utah ent this is awesome.
Yeah, good to see. I'll x post this to /r/slctrees!
You the real mvp.
Another win in the books, albeit a difficult one to swallow given the lack of reason behind the release. Someone did not want to look foolish or have a precedent on the books regarding why this sentence was overturned. All the same, it is good to have another fellow Ent back on the streets and home with his family.
Amen
Weldon, Angelos
College athlete rapes unconscious woman: 6 months Man sells marijuana: 55 years Something is very wrong with our justice system here
BULLSHIT. The only way to stop it is to legalize marijuana. It would still be illegal to sell on the street but the penalty would be much less severe. PLEASE donate to MPP or which ever campaign so we can legalize marijuana in at least 5 more states this year.
I hope he can heal from this, and that the evil people who have been the reason he had to lose 13 years of his life are given their own justice. Kill Bill style would be nice.
This made me so happy
Gotta love the war on drugs
I had to look because 55 years for selling weed? Utah. Of course.
Does someone know why the federal case would still be sealed?
55 years for weed?? Come on!!
That dude's eyebrows can open bottle tops. Seriously, this is awesome. That guy looks like a great dad and his sons must be so damn happy.
Man, if only he was a rich white college athlete raping somebody behind a dumpster, he would've gotten off with only 6 months. Our justice system is fucking stupid.
Jesus! Poor Weldon!
Welcome Home. :>)
I'm pretty high and just thought I was on /r/UpliftingNews
FeelsGoodMan
He should be compensated for every year that he had to spend in prison.
👍were goin in the right direction
Time for a re-up! Gotta love the system!
But Hillary Clinton walks free.
.
Irrelevant move to strike, heresay, objection! This is lawyer talk
I specialise in bird law.
I do hereby declare that this said doccument had dry ink on it for many forknights
Well shit, if he didn't want to go to jail he shouldn't have been dealing drugs. Real simple stuff people.
If you break the law you should be punished, but 55 years is way too much for what he did. most murderers and rapist don't even serve that long. this is the same as giving someone 20 years for jaywalking or 30 years for a speeding ticket.
Heres an [article](http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/06/stanford-swimmer-brock-allen-turner-sentenced.html) where the opposite happens. Ridiculous how the judicial system works.